Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Oriental Carbon And Chemical Ltd, Shri A.D. Almeida, Vice President Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Gurgaon-II

2015 (12) TMI 221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bill of Entry is not in the name of the appellant - services do not qualify as input service as per Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- payment towards the said capital goods have been paid by the appellant only and the capital goods is physically available in the premises of the appellant. Therefore, merely wrong mention of the name in the Bill of Entry Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the appellant

Various input services i.e. Business Cham .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titled to the appellant. - appellant has taken Cenvat Credit correctly. Therefore, impugned demands i.e. duty and interest are not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/52284, 52551/2015-ST(SM) - Final Order Nos. 52699-52700/2015-ST(SM) - Dated:- 27-8-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Rupinder Singh, Adv For the Respondent : Shri R K Grover, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order wherein input service credi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not in the name of the appellant. The input service credit on the following services were also sought to be denied on the premises that these services do not qualify as input service as per Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules: a) Business Chamber Association Services b) Horticulture Services c) After Sale Services (commission paid to the services) d) Outward Goods Transportation Agency Services. 3. Aggrieved from the said order, appellants are before me. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

all these services have been used by the appellant in the course of the business of their manufacturing activity. With regard to the GTA services he submits that he sold the goods to buyer on FOR basis and audit team has inspected the same. Moreover, in reply to the show cause notice they have clearly mentioned that they are selling goods on FOR basis but Adjudicating Authority has not given any finding thereon. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ugned order. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 7. In this case Cenvat Credit of ₹ 2,71,573/- was sought to be denied on the premise that the Bill of Entry is in the name of the EOU and not in the name of the appellant. In fact, the name of 100% EOU is wrongly mentioned by the appellant which has been explained. The payment towards the said capital goods have been paid by the appellant only and the capital goods is physically available in the premises of the appellant. Theref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version